Psychological Science Research Institute, UCLouvain, Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium.
Psychological Science Research Institute, UCLouvain, Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium.
Biol Psychol. 2020 Apr;152:107869. doi: 10.1016/j.biopsycho.2020.107869. Epub 2020 Feb 20.
In two Commentaries, Zimprich et al. (2020), and Ainley et al. (2020) dispute conclusions raised by Zamariola et al. (2018) in a large sample study that questioned the validity of IAcc scores derived from the Heartbeat Counting Task (HCT). After clarifying the reliability of our procedures and the robustness of our main findings, we address the four points of contention discussed in the Commentaries. In doing so, we spell out why research using the HCT faces important interpretational issues, and we call for a theoretical clarification on the construct. In our conclusion, we provide recommendations for improving HCT research and research on interoception in general.
在两篇评论中,Zimprich 等人(2020 年)和 Ainley 等人(2020 年)对 Zamariola 等人(2018 年)在一项大规模样本研究中提出的结论提出质疑,该研究质疑了源自心跳计数任务(HCT)的 IAcc 评分的有效性。在澄清了我们的程序的可靠性和我们的主要发现的稳健性之后,我们解决了评论中讨论的四个争议点。在这样做的过程中,我们阐明了为什么使用 HCT 的研究面临重要的解释问题,并呼吁对该结构进行理论澄清。在我们的结论中,我们为改进 HCT 研究和一般的内脏感知研究提供了建议。